Kipnes Dianne R, Piper William E, Joyce Anthony S
Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia.
Int J Group Psychother. 2002 Oct;52(4):483-509. doi: 10.1521/ijgp.52.4.483.45525.
This study used two measures of cohesion for the process analysis of 12 short-term, time-limited groups for complicated grief. The measures had similar theoretical definitions but differed in terms of rater source (member vs. observer), measurement score (mean of items vs. global rating), and rating unit (individual vs. group). We examined the relationship between the measures, assessed the development of cohesion over the life of the group, and evaluated each measure's relationship to outcome. A principal components analysis with each measure yielded one cohesion component, which supported a unidimensional model; however, the two cohesion components were independent of each other, which supported a multidimensional model. Repeated measures analyses indicated that observer-rated cohesion developed in a quadratic manner (v pattern) across sessions, while member-rated cohesion developed in a linear manner. The object focus (the group, other members, the therapist) of the members' ratings determined whether cohesion increased or decreased across sessions. No significant relationships between cohesion and outcome were identified. Implications of the findings for the understanding of group cohesion are considered.
本研究采用两种凝聚力测量方法，对12个针对复杂性悲伤的短期、有时间限制的团体进行过程分析。这两种测量方法在理论定义上相似，但在评分者来源（成员与观察者）、测量分数（项目均值与整体评分）和评分单位（个体与团体）方面存在差异。我们检验了这两种测量方法之间的关系，评估了团体生命周期中凝聚力的发展情况，并评估了每种测量方法与结果之间的关系。对每种测量方法进行主成分分析，均产生了一个凝聚力成分，这支持了单维模型；然而，这两个凝聚力成分相互独立，这支持了多维模型。重复测量分析表明，观察者评定的凝聚力在各阶段呈二次方方式（V型）发展，而成员评定的凝聚力呈线性方式发展。成员评定的对象焦点（团体、其他成员、治疗师）决定了各阶段凝聚力是增加还是减少。未发现凝聚力与结果之间存在显著关系。本研究还考虑了这些发现对理解团体凝聚力的意义。
